Tough New York Gun Law May Hold Unintended Consequences - Think Atheist2016-12-09T15:49:47Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/tough-new-york-gun-law-may-hold-unintended-consequences?xg_source=activity&id=1982180%3ATopic%3A1247782&feed=yes&xn_auth=noQuestion: Does mandatory repo…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-06:1982180:Comment:12566022013-02-06T23:41:12.245Zarchaeopteryxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/u_2gskiyna07rt3
<p>Question: Does mandatory reporting by doctors and hospitals of gunshot wounds have any beneficial advantages? "Might imposing a reporting requirement on" doctors and hospitals "expose them to homicidal danger once the client realizes that his" doctor or hospital "has breached the shell of confidentiality holding between them?"</p>
<p>Question: Does mandatory reporting by teachers, hospitals, doctors and counselors of suspected child abuse or child sexual abuse have any beneficial advantages?…</p>
<p>Question: Does mandatory reporting by doctors and hospitals of gunshot wounds have any beneficial advantages? "Might imposing a reporting requirement on" doctors and hospitals "expose them to homicidal danger once the client realizes that his" doctor or hospital "has breached the shell of confidentiality holding between them?"</p>
<p>Question: Does mandatory reporting by teachers, hospitals, doctors and counselors of suspected child abuse or child sexual abuse have any beneficial advantages? Shouldn't we let these people "do their job rather than imposing requirements on them" while the abuse continues?</p>
<p>After all, a pound of cure is worth an ounce of prevention --</p> Video's are starting to pop u…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-06:1982180:Comment:12564422013-02-06T20:22:47.798ZGregg R Thomashttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GreggRThomas
<p>Video's are starting to pop up on YouTube, apparently there are a few gun owners in NY State at are a bit upset at the new law and those who voted it in.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Video's are starting to pop up on YouTube, apparently there are a few gun owners in NY State at are a bit upset at the new law and those who voted it in.</p>
<p></p> "Tough New York Gun Law May H…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-06:1982180:Comment:12563322013-02-06T15:53:22.926ZWarrenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/WarrenEJappe
<p>"Tough New York Gun Law May Hold Unintended Consequences" I hope that the politicians that wrote these laws get what's coming to them as a unintended consequence for them, impeached for violating constitutional law. </p>
<p>"Tough New York Gun Law May Hold Unintended Consequences" I hope that the politicians that wrote these laws get what's coming to them as a unintended consequence for them, impeached for violating constitutional law. </p> RIP to your fathertag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-06:1982180:Comment:12561752013-02-06T13:01:56.614ZWarrenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/WarrenEJappe
<p>RIP to your father</p>
<p>RIP to your father</p> Thanks. He lived to 92 and di…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-06:1982180:Comment:12561942013-02-06T02:48:57.049ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>Thanks. He lived to 92 and died at home surrounded by his family after a long and steady decline followed by a series of medical setbacks and cataclysms. It was time to go. A very loving and generous man who never made an enemy, he will be missed by all who knew him.</p>
<p>Thanks. He lived to 92 and died at home surrounded by his family after a long and steady decline followed by a series of medical setbacks and cataclysms. It was time to go. A very loving and generous man who never made an enemy, he will be missed by all who knew him.</p> Unseen - I'm sorry about your…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-06:1982180:Comment:12561362013-02-06T02:43:38.468Zarchaeopteryxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/u_2gskiyna07rt3
<p>Unseen - I'm sorry about your father.</p>
<p>Unseen - I'm sorry about your father.</p> @Gallups Mirror
Sorry it took…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-06:1982180:Comment:12558862013-02-06T01:10:45.610ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p><strong>@Gallups Mirror</strong></p>
<p>Sorry it took so long to get back. Little matter of my father dying.</p>
<p><strong>In the case of the old South, it's obvious that "wrong" was applied in different ways to free white people and black slaves, probably due to many people feeling that the slaves were subhuman animals.</strong></p>
<p>...and was defended using 'incongruous, inaccurate, or dishonest' arguments, like that one.</p>
<p><strong>...and was defended using (what…</strong></p>
<p><strong>@Gallups Mirror</strong></p>
<p>Sorry it took so long to get back. Little matter of my father dying.</p>
<p><strong>In the case of the old South, it's obvious that "wrong" was applied in different ways to free white people and black slaves, probably due to many people feeling that the slaves were subhuman animals.</strong></p>
<p>...and was defended using 'incongruous, inaccurate, or dishonest' arguments, like that one.</p>
<p><strong>...and was defended using (what we <em>today</em>would regard as 'incongruous, or dishonest' arguments...</strong></p>
<p>Africans are not "subhuman animals". Even if slavers believed this, they were wrong ('inaccurate') as a matter of fact, not opinion. </p>
<p><strong>This is what you and I believe today, but unfortunately until DNA came along it wasn't indisputable that other races were subhuman. It's not like proving something in chemistry or physics such as the melting point of gold </strong></p>
<p>On that point alone, (by today's values) slavery is unjustifiable ('unjust') thus slavery in the old south was wrong (by our lights). It follows that (today we believe) it's wrong ('incongruous') not to apply 'wrong-ness' to slavery, when it meets these conditions.</p>
<p>Otherwise—you tell me—how could they treat the slaves as they did? Unless they were just evil people. Were they?</p>
<p>We've already covered this. Exploitation is greatly advantageous to the exploiter, whether it's wrong or not.<br/>If you admit context than you have conceded my point.<br/>Your point is that slavery in the old south was wrong as a matter of opinion. And your point has been falsified many times over.</p>
<p><strong>So, is it your position that people always knew that slavery was wrong because of what we today would call weak arguments against it? When did humans first start becoming logical? Certainly it wouldn't be hard to find that people in the past believed a lot of things that today we'd call wrong, silly, or outrageous. I'm sure that in the future many of the things we believe today will prove to be factually wrong. Other things will be thought to be silly or outrageous as well. I'm equally sure that many of the moral/ethical positions we hold to be certain today will be held to be wrong.</strong></p>
<p><strong>My point is that values and definitions (how words are used) vary across time. Nothing you've said really disproves that point wrong.</strong></p>
<p><strong>But go ahead, like President Bush on the aircraft carrier deck, declare complete and total victory.</strong></p> Where do all human beings dra…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-01-27:1982180:Comment:12524982013-01-27T03:48:06.135ZGregg R Thomashttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GreggRThomas
<p>Where do all human beings draw the line between themselves and all things "wrong"?</p>
<p>Right in front of their toes.</p>
<p>The meaning of right and wrong is derived from one's own state of mind, from one's own perspective.</p>
<p>From my perspective...you are all wrong and I'm right. :D…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Where do all human beings draw the line between themselves and all things "wrong"?</p>
<p>Right in front of their toes.</p>
<p>The meaning of right and wrong is derived from one's own state of mind, from one's own perspective.</p>
<p>From my perspective...you are all wrong and I'm right. :D</p>
<p><span style="top: 293px; left: 285px; margin-left: -54px; opacity: 1;" class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble smarterwiki-popup-bubble-active smarterwiki-popup-bubble-flipped"><span class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-body"><span class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-links-container"><span class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-links"><span class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-links-row"><a target="_blank" title="Search DuckDuckGo" href="http://duckduckgo.com/?q=r" class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-link"><img src="https://ff.duckduckgo.com/favicon.ico" alt="" class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-link-favicon"/></a><a target="_blank" title="Search Wikipedia" href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=com&amp;btnI=I'm+Feeling+Lucky&amp;q=r+wikipedia" class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-link"><img alt="" class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-link-favicon"/></a></span><span class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-links-row"><a target="_blank" title="Search Google" href="http://www.google.com/search?q=r" class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-link"><img src="https://www.google.com/favicon.ico" alt="" class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-link-favicon"/></a><a target="_blank" title="Search Surf Canyon" href="http://search.surfcanyon.com/search?f=nrl1&amp;q=r&amp;partner=fastestfox" class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-link"><img alt="" class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-link-favicon"/></a></span></span></span></span></span><span style="margin-top: 60px; margin-left: -350px; top: 293px; left: 285px; opacity: 1;" class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble smarterwiki-popup-bubble-active smarterwiki-popup-bubble-detailed smarterwiki-popup-bubble-flipped"><span class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-body"><span class="smarterwiki-popup-bubble-definition"><span><span class="smarterwiki-zc-header">R</span><span class="smarterwiki-zc-image"><img src="https://i.duckduckgo.com/i/11d2f24c.png" class="smarterwiki-zc-image-img" alt=""/></span><span class="smarterwiki-zc-abstract"><b>Wikipedia:</b> <span>R (named ar forms/script: ) is the eighteenth letter of the ISO basic Latin alphabet.</span> <a href="http://duckduckgo.com/?q=r" id="dd-cite-link" name="dd-cite-link"><b>→</b></a></span></span></span></span></span></p> Likewise, in a context where…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-01-27:1982180:Comment:12522332013-01-27T02:26:13.434ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p><strong>Likewise, in a context where wrong is understood to mean 'unfair, injurious, unjust, incongruous, inaccurate or dishonest', then it's incongruous to assert that wrong is not wrong, or that something which meets the criteria for being wrong is not wrong.</strong></p>
<p>Different times, different contexts.</p>
<p><em>That kind of destroys the second paragraph.</em></p>
<p><strong>Of course it doesn't. To destroy the statement you must falsify that: 'It's incongruous to assert that…</strong></p>
<p><strong>Likewise, in a context where wrong is understood to mean 'unfair, injurious, unjust, incongruous, inaccurate or dishonest', then it's incongruous to assert that wrong is not wrong, or that something which meets the criteria for being wrong is not wrong.</strong></p>
<p>Different times, different contexts.</p>
<p><em>That kind of destroys the second paragraph.</em></p>
<p><strong>Of course it doesn't. To destroy the statement you must falsify that: 'It's incongruous to assert that something that meets the criteria for the meaning of wrong is not wrong. The application itself meets the criteria for being wrong.'</strong></p>
<p><strong>You not only failed to falsify it, you actually provided more examples to support it, and then claimed (rather outrageously) that you'd done the opposite.</strong></p>
<p>Different times, different contexts. It's doubtful (and impossible to determine anyway) whether, if you could explain what "wrong" means to us today to a caveman 100,000 years ago what's wrong with "wrong," since being "wrong" to someone was probably a good way to survive.</p>
<p><strong>You have a tendency, it seems, to wear the opponent out with an avalanche of argument and if they don't respond you can declare victory. You're not the first on TA to use this tactic of forcing the opponent to spend a huge amount of time responding. I won't play that game.</strong></p>
<p>And as you can see, I'm not.</p>
<p><strong>...paired with a surpassing talent for answering them dishonestly. But don't concern yourself. I know why you won't reply.</strong></p>
<p>I expected you'd say something along that line.</p>
<p><strong>You have no sound argument that supports your point. And you're too proud to concede a point.</strong></p>
<p>You haven't shown that concepts like "wrong" have any sort of eternality and objectivity to them. How do you explain that Greeks and Egyptions and Persians had no trouble with things we'd call wrong today. The Mayans sacrificed children to please their gods. Were they just very bad people, or did they apply the idea (I can't say word because they spoke Mayan, no English) in a very different way, then. A way that would seem horrific and alien to us?</p>
<p><strong>And that brings us to cheap trick number one: He's forcing me to respond!</strong></p>
<p><strong>Really, Unseen. How exactly am I forcing you to respond? Psychic mind control powers?</strong></p>
<p>You're not forcing me to respond, you're forcing me, if I do respond in kind, to devote a lot of time and energy. So, I won't. You could be a lot more concise.</p>
<p>Break your post up into pieces, make your arguments concise, and I will gladly respond. So, awaiting your next post, here I am.</p>
<p>And now we come to cheap trick number two: My response is now conditional on your compliance with these demands!</p>
<p>How can I make a demand of you? You're as free as you noted I am!</p>
<p><strong>Naturally, you're the sole arbitrator of my compliance. (That's a fascinating observation, by the way, as my writing has been commended for incisiveness and clarity throughout my academic and professional careers.)</strong></p>
<p>Incisiveness and clarity aren't conciseness. I'm probably the sole arbiter of your compliance, if I am, because you and I are probably the only ones reading these posts. Lengthy posts that go on and on tend to drive readers away.</p> Ten means ten. Incongruously…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-01-26:1982180:Comment:12518182013-01-26T00:24:57.628ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p><strong>Ten means ten. Incongruously one may refuse to acknowledge that ten means ten, or assert that ten means nine. But these incongruous applications do not change the determination that ten means ten.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Likewise for the meaning of wrong. It's incongruous to assert that something that meets the criteria for the meaning of wrong is not wrong. The application itself meets the criteria for being wrong.</strong></p>
<p>"Ten" means one thing when applied to cardinal…</p>
<p><strong>Ten means ten. Incongruously one may refuse to acknowledge that ten means ten, or assert that ten means nine. But these incongruous applications do not change the determination that ten means ten.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Likewise for the meaning of wrong. It's incongruous to assert that something that meets the criteria for the meaning of wrong is not wrong. The application itself meets the criteria for being wrong.</strong></p>
<p>"Ten" means one thing when applied to cardinal numbers and something else when applied to currency. Beyond that there was a group of painters who exhibited under the name Ten. It could be a code such as "If you have a winning hand, say something with the word 'ten' in it." It's all in how you apply it.</p>
<p>That kind of destroys the second paragraph.</p>
<p>Now, where is my reply to the rest of what you wrote? You have a tendency, it seems, to wear the opponent out with an avalanche of argument and if they don't respond you can declare victory. You're not the first on TA to use this tactic of forcing the opponent to spend a huge amount of time responding. </p>
<p>I won't play that game. </p>
<p>Break your post up into pieces, make your arguments concise, and I will gladly respond. So, awaiting your next post, here I am.</p>